Basis of Presentation (Policies)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2017

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In March 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2017–07, Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost (“ASU 2017–07”) which provides guidance to improve the reporting of net benefit cost in financial statements. The guidance requires employers to disaggregate the service cost component from the other components of net benefit cost. The service cost component of net periodic benefit cost shall be reported in the same line item as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by the pertinent employees during the period, except for amounts capitalized. All other components of net benefit cost shall be presented outside of a subtotal for income from operations. The line item used to present the components other than the service cost shall be disclosed if the other components are not presented in a separate line item or items. ASU 2017–07 is effective January 1, 2018 and is required to be applied retrospectively. ASU 2017–07 will be applicable to our legacy retiree benefit plans which cover a limited population of former employees. There is no service cost associated with these plans as they are not applicable to current employees, but rather interest and other costs associated with the legacy obligations. Upon the adoption of ASU 2017–07, the entirety of the expense associated with these plans will be presented as a component of the “Other income (expense)” caption in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. These costs are currently recognized as a component of “General and administrative” expenses. The total cost associated with these plans is generally less than $0.1 million on an annual basis and is therefore not material. We will adopt ASU 2017–07 in January 2018.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016–13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (“ASU 2016–13”), which changes the recognition model for the impairment of financial instruments, including accounts receivable, loans and held-to-maturity debt securities, among others. ASU 2016–13 is required to be adopted using the modified retrospective method by January 1, 2020, with early adoption permitted for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2018. In contrast to current guidance, which considers current information and events and utilizes a probable threshold, (an “incurred loss” model), ASU 2016–13 mandates an “expected loss” model. The expected loss model: (i) estimates the risk of loss even when risk is remote, (ii) estimates losses over the contractual life, (iii) considers past events, current conditions and reasonable supported forecasts and (iv) has no recognition threshold. ASU 2016–13 will have applicability to our accounts receivable portfolio, particularly those receivables attributable to our joint interest partners which have a higher credit risk than those associated with our traditional customer receivables. At this time, we do not anticipate that the adoption of ASU 2016–13 will have a significant impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements and related disclosures; however, we are continuing to evaluate the requirements and the period for which we will adopt the standard as well as monitoring developments regarding ASU 2016–13 that are unique to our industry.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016–02, Leases (“ASU 2016–02”), which will require organizations that lease assets to recognize on the balance sheet the assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by those leases with terms of more than twelve months. Consistent with current GAAP, the recognition, measurement, and presentation of expenses and cash flows arising from a lease by a lessee primarily will depend on its classification as a finance or operating lease. ASU 2016–02 also will require disclosures regarding the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The effective date of ASU 2016–02 is January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. We believe that ASU 2016–02 will likely be applicable to our oil and natural gas gathering commitment arrangements as described in Note 13, our existing leases for office facilities and certain office equipment, land easements and similar arrangements for rights-of-way and potentially to certain drilling rig and completion contracts with terms in excess of twelve months to the extent we may have such contracts in the future. Our oil and natural gas gathering arrangements are fairly complex and involve multiple elements that could be construed as leases. Accordingly, we are continuing to evaluate the effect that ASU 2016–02 will have on our Consolidated Financial Statements and related disclosures as well as the period for which we will adopt the standard, however, at this time, we believe that we will likely adopt ASU 2016–02 in 2019. We are also continuing to monitor developments regarding ASU 2016–02 that are unique to our industry.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014–09, Revenues from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2014–09”), which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. ASU 2014–09 will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in GAAP when it becomes effective on January 1, 2018. The standard permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method upon adoption. While traditional commodity sales transactions, property conveyances and joint interest arrangements in the oil and gas industry are not expected to be significantly impacted by ASU 2014–09, the terms of the individual commodity purchase, joint operating agreements and other contracts underlying these types of transactions will determine the appropriate recognition, measurement and disclosure once ASU 2014–09 has been adopted. Also, to the extent applicable, we are considering our participation in certain of these transactions as either a principal or agent. In addition, the recognition, measurement and disclosure of producer imbalances and other non-product revenues, including our ancillary marketing, gathering and transportation and water disposal revenues, while not significant, could be impacted to some degree. Our non-product revenues are projected to represent less than $1 million of our total revenues on an annualized basis; however, that level could rise in future periods based on the potential expansion and growth of our operations. In summary, with the exception of more expansive disclosures, we have not identified any potentially material impact attributable to ASU 2014–09. While we are continuing to evaluate the overall effect that ASU 2014–09 will have on our Consolidated Financial Statements and related disclosures, our remaining efforts are primarily focused on developing controls and procedures to facilitate the ongoing process of analysis of future contracts and their terms in order to support the appropriate accounting and disclosure. We are also continuing to monitor developments regarding ASU 2014–09 that are unique to our industry. We will adopt ASU 2014–09 in January 2018 using the cumulative effect transition method.

Basis of Presentation

Our unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Penn Virginia and all of our subsidiaries. Intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated. Our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Preparation of these statements involves the use of estimates and judgments where appropriate. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, considered necessary for a fair presentation of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been included. Our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. Operating results for the nine months ended September 30, 2017, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2017.

Comparability of Financial Statements to Prior Periods

We adopted and began applying the relevant guidance provided in GAAP with respect to the accounting and financial statement disclosures for entities that have emerged from bankruptcy proceedings (“Fresh Start Accounting”) on September 12, 2016. Accordingly, our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes after September 12, 2016, are not comparable to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes through that date. To facilitate our financial statement presentations, we refer to the reorganized company in these Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes as the “Successor,” which is effectively a new reporting entity for financial reporting purposes, for periods subsequent to September 12, 2016, and the “Predecessor” for periods prior to September 13, 2016. In connection with our reorganization, we experienced a change in control as the outstanding common and preferred shares of the Predecessor were canceled and substantially all of the Successor’s new common stock was issued to the Predecessor’s creditors.

Furthermore, our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes have been presented with a “black line” division to delineate, where applicable, the lack of comparability between the Predecessor and Successor. In addition, we adopted the full cost method of accounting for our oil and gas properties effective with our adoption of Fresh Start Accounting. Accordingly, our results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the Successor periods will be substantially different from our historic trends.

We have recasted amounts for equity-classified share-based compensation recognized as a component of “General and administrative” expenses from the amounts originally reported for the Predecessor period from July 1, 2016 through September 12, 2016 to correct for an immaterial error identified by management and disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016. Previously reported expense associated with this matter was decreased by $5.3 million for the period from July 1, 2016 through September 12, 2016. Our Predecessor net income for the period from July 1, 2016 through September 12, 2016 increased by an identical amount and our net income per basic and diluted share increased by $0.06 and $0.05. The Predecessor net income and earnings per share measures were unchanged for the period from January 1, 2016 through September 12, 2016.

Going Concern Presumption

Our unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the Successor periods have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities and other commitments in the normal course of business.

Fair Value Measurements

We apply the authoritative accounting provisions for measuring the fair value of both our financial and nonfinancial assets and liabilities. Fair value is an exit price representing the expected amount we would receive upon the sale of an asset or that we would expect to pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction with market participants at the measurement date.

Fair Value, Measurements, Recurring

Schedule of Policies [Line Items]

Fair Value Measurements

We used the following methods and assumptions to estimate fair values for the financial assets and liabilities described below:

•

Commodity derivatives: We determine the fair values of our commodity derivative instruments based on discounted cash flows derived from third-party quoted forward prices for WTI crude oil and NYMEX Henry Hub gas closing prices as of the end of the reporting periods. We generally use the income approach, using valuation techniques that convert future cash flows to a single discounted value. Each of these is a level 2 input.

Fair Value, Measurements, Nonrecurring

Schedule of Policies [Line Items]

Fair Value Measurements

Non-Recurring Fair Value Measurements

In addition to the fair value measurements applied with respect to the Acquisition, as described in Note 3, the most significant non-recurring fair value measurements utilized in the preparation of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are those attributable to the initial determination of AROs associated with the ongoing development of new oil and gas properties. The determination of the fair value of AROs is based upon regional market and facility specific information. The amount of an ARO and the costs capitalized represent the estimated future cost to satisfy the abandonment obligation using current prices that are escalated by an assumed inflation factor after discounting the future cost back to the date that the abandonment obligation was incurred using a rate commensurate with the risk, which approximates our cost of funds. Because these significant fair value inputs are typically not observable, we have categorized the initial estimates as level 3 inputs.

In addition, we utilize non-recurring fair value measurements with respect to the recognition and measurement of asset impairments, particularly during our Predecessor periods during which time we applied the successful efforts method to our oil and gas properties. The factors used to determine fair value for purposes of recognizing and measuring asset impairments while we applied the successful efforts method to our oil and gas properties during our Predecessor periods included, but were not limited to, estimates of proved and risk-adjusted probable reserves, future commodity prices, indicative sales prices for properties, the timing of future production and capital expenditures and a discount rate commensurate with the risk reflective of the lives remaining for the respective oil and gas properties. Because these significant fair value inputs were typically not observable, we have categorized the amounts as level 3 inputs. Under the full cost method, which we have applied since the Emergence Date, we apply a ceiling test determination utilizing prescribed procedures. The full cost method is substantially different from the successful efforts method which relies upon fair value measurements.